# If Gay marriage is a right what about this: **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 3, 2016, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-gay-marriage-is-a-right-what-about-this/770544 "2016-11-03T17:20:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![WilyQuixote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f9ae1b/32.png) [@WilyQuixote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WilyQuixote)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-gay-marriage-is-a-right-what-about-this/770544/41 "2016-11-04T06:36:58Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Until polygamists reach a critical mass that will continue. Yes, that’s pretty much the crux of the matter. I’ve already mentioned in a previous post that in South Africa, polygamous marriage is recognised - but only for a black south Africans who conclude a polygamous marriage in accordance with customary law. This excludes the other population groups, as well as anyone who wishes to have a civil marriage. Yet there is absolutely no push for any strain of polygamous marriage to be extended to other races - and amongst black South Africans support is declining. I doubt there is much support for polygamous marriages in the USA or UK as well. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-gay-marriage-is-a-right-what-about-this/770544/42 "2016-11-04T06:50:07Z")
There once wasn’t much support for gay marriage, even among gays, in part because it never occurred to many gay people that marriage was even something that was an option. Right now, there are swingers, three-way relationships, open marriages, and bisexuals who do have more than one relationship going(or date a couple). Especially in the latter case of bisexuals who have long term sexual relationships with a couple, it probably just never occurs to anyone that their relationship could become something more. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-gay-marriage-is-a-right-what-about-this/770544/43 "2016-11-04T06:54:07Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > [List of countries that allow polygamy.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy#Countries_that_recognize_polygamous_marriages) > I will hazard a guess that in most, if not almost all countries listed, polygamy applies to one man with multiple wives and the wives having few if any rights. > > Greatly simplifies the legal wrangling. Our tour guide in Egypt’s husband married another wife. And then ignored her. She was able to get out of the marriage easily, but it was expensive. Well worth it, she said. She definitely had some rights, but there was an imbalance of power there. ---
**Author:** ![WilyQuixote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f9ae1b/32.png) [@WilyQuixote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WilyQuixote)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-gay-marriage-is-a-right-what-about-this/770544/44 "2016-11-04T07:09:44Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > There once wasn’t much support for gay marriage, even among gays, in part because it never occurred to many gay people that marriage was even something that was an option. Are you honestly wondering why LGBTI activists didn’t fight for SSM during times when homosexuality was considered a mental disorder and/or subject to prison terms? > [@](#): > > it probably just never occurs to anyone that their relationship could become something more. Polygamy has been around for millenia and is still practiced (and recognised) in many countries. The idea that it didn’t occur to any significant number “swingers, three way relationships et al” that their situation could be a marriage at some point is ludicrous. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-gay-marriage-is-a-right-what-about-this/770544/45 "2016-11-04T07:20:05Z")
Well sure, I suppose they could move to Saudi Arabia… But here in the US, no one involved in a three person or more relationship can even contemplate marriage. It’s not even on the horizon or being seriously debated yet. And in many places the authorities will still jail you if you’re living as if it’s a marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-gay-marriage-is-a-right-what-about-this/770544/46 "2016-11-04T07:27:52Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > And all of the arguments for gay marriage apply equally to other nontraditional consensual arrangements. No, they don’t. The arguments for gay marriage were based on the fact that legal marriage already existed but was being denied to some couples for no good reason. If someone wants to set up a “nontraditional consensual arrangement”, i.e. identical twin brothers and identical twin sisters form a randomized foursome in which heterosexual couplings are a matter of convenience, (i.e. is that Jim or Bob? Who cares, have sex with him. Is that Sue or Mary? Who cares, have sex with her.), fine. They won’t get spousal benefits, though, like joint tax returns or privileged communications or any of the other matters that are associated with legal marriage. The argument isn’t “make gay marriage legal because the state has no right telling citizens who they can have sex with”, the argument was “don’t keep a gender-based restriction on legal marriage because it is unfair for no good reason.” ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-gay-marriage-is-a-right-what-about-this/770544/47 "2016-11-04T07:40:40Z")
That was not the argument made. As I recall, it ran something like, “You can’t help who you fall in love with”, and “people are born that way”. And as I said before, I think most of these people would just be satisfied to not risk jail terms. > **[Mother, Son 'Willing to Go to Jail' for Incestuous Relationship](https://www.snopes.com/2016/08/10/mother-son-incestuous-relationship/)** > > A mother and son who say they're involved in an intimate relationship have come forward separately to inform the public about the phenomenon of Genetic Sexual Attraction, or GSA. > [@](#): > > The two have been charged with felonies and are prevented from seeing one another. However, they told the Daily Mail (in separate interviews due to the court order, according to the article) that they wanted to go public with their story in order to bring attention to Genetic Sexual Attraction, also occasionally referred to as post-adoption incest. That’s just incredible. The government can actually bar two adults from seeing each other? ---
**Author:** ![WilyQuixote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f9ae1b/32.png) [@WilyQuixote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WilyQuixote)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-gay-marriage-is-a-right-what-about-this/770544/48 "2016-11-04T07:46:04Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Well sure, I suppose they could move to Saudi Arabia… But here in the US, no one involved in a three person or more relationship can even contemplate marriage. It’s not even on the horizon or being seriously debated yet. Because there is simply no demand for it. This is reflected in the absolute lack - to the best of my knowledge - of any serious organised movement, NPO or other activist organisation operating in the USA campaigning for widespread adoption and /or recognition of any flavour of polygamous marriage. (If there is, I’d appreciate a cite.) > [@](#): > > And in many places the authorities will still jail you **if you’re living as if it’s a marriage**. Highlighting mine. This phrasing has usually meant a man and woman living together and doing what men and women living together usually do. If this is your claim with regard to the US I call BS and require a cite. If not, what do you mean? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-gay-marriage-is-a-right-what-about-this/770544/49 "2016-11-04T07:50:00Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That was not the argument made. As I recall, it ran something like, “You can’t help who you fall in love with”, and “people are born that way”. > > And as I said before, I think most of these people would just be satisfied to not risk jail terms. > > [Mother, Son 'Willing to Go to Jail' for Incestuous Relationship | Snopes.com](http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/10/mother-son-incestuous-relationship/) > > That’s just incredible. The government can actually bar two adults from seeing each other? Well, if they ultimately want to challenge incest-based barriers to legal marriage, they can fight their way through the courts the way SSM proponents did and _maybe_ those barriers can be struck down. The leap from there to polygamy (let alone SSM to polygamy) is not established, though. As I understand it, the courts can mandate restraining orders to keep adults apart if it is likely their meeting will involve criminal activity. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-gay-marriage-is-a-right-what-about-this/770544/50 "2016-11-04T08:32:19Z")
Like being in love. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-gay-marriage-is-a-right-what-about-this/770544/51 "2016-11-04T08:43:42Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Like being in love. I suspect the likelihood of engaging in incestuous sex was more of a factor, because in that specific circumstance, the state _can_ actually exert some control. If someone wants to argue the state should not be able to do so, good luck to them but they will have to go through the long slow judicial process. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-gay-marriage-is-a-right-what-about-this/770544/52 "2016-11-04T09:05:52Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I personally have nothing against polygamous relationships…but the legal mess a marriage of more than two people would create would be tremendous. Can you divorce one without divorcing the whole group? Can pre-nups be arranged with just _some_ of the parties? Child custody would be a nightmare, and I’m sure I’ve just scratched the surface. In some circumstances, even a single, traditional male-female marriage can have significant legal complications. One reason for the Catholic Church requiring unmarried priests for the second half of its’ history was the rach of legal inheritance problems caused by the death of married priests. Was that gold chalice given to the late Father John personally (thus his property, and inherited by his widow) or to him as Pastor of St. Lukes Church (thus being & remaining property of the church)? And what rights does the widow have to continue living in the parsonage? It will be needed for the new priest, but throwing out the widow & kids hardly seems christian. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-gay-marriage-is-a-right-what-about-this/770544/53 "2016-11-04T09:32:33Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > Why would child custody be a nightmare? There would only be one biological father and one biological mother just as in non-polygamous marriage. I don’t see a problem here. Why are you assuming that the children would be the biological children of two of the marriage partners? > [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > One reason for the Catholic Church requiring unmarried priests for the second half of its’ history was the rach of legal inheritance problems caused by the death of married priests. Not the second half, the fourth quarter. It’s from Trent, 16th century. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-gay-marriage-is-a-right-what-about-this/770544/54 "2016-11-04T17:23:26Z")
> [@tim-n-va](#): > > With divorce we just need to look at what happens if three people are in a business as co-owners. If one wants out, the other two have to decide if they want to buy him/her out and continue or if they want to just dissolve the whole thing. So, what happens when GM and IBM and General Electric merge and a few years later, GM wants to kick GE out of the conglomerate, and IBM and GE want the mega-corporation to continue as before? ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-gay-marriage-is-a-right-what-about-this/770544/55 "2016-11-04T18:28:41Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > Why are you assuming that the children would be the biological children of two of the marriage partners? Here we go. Marriage is not all about children. It never was, it never will be, not as long as our notion of marriage survives. But marriage often involves children, and a marriage which involves children is those children’s whole lives. That’s why it can’t be handled like business law in the general case: Some marriages can and should be, but others require vastly different laws and procedures to ensure the children are damaged as little as possible. This is another huge difference between dyadic marriage (that is, marriage strictly between two people at a time) and plural marriage, and it isn’t one we can hand-wave away with either general platitudes or claims that the individual courts will sort it all out. There is no precedent for what to do in these cases which is consistent with every adult in the marriage being a full adult with the full rights of an adult, and that lack manifests itself in a complete uncertainty in how custody disputes would be handled. Nevertheless, the conservatives who were screaming “THINK OF THE CHILDREN” the last time same-sex marriage was up for debate are now just blissfully certain that there’s no problem with plural marriage other than liberal pigheadedness. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-gay-marriage-is-a-right-what-about-this/770544/56 "2016-11-04T18:46:40Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > This is why I maintain that the road to legalizing polygamous marriage goes through existing legal partnership law rather than existing marriage law. Who cares who’s having sex with who? The critical issues will be control over (and potential division of) assets and liabilities. Are children assets or liabilities? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-gay-marriage-is-a-right-what-about-this/770544/57 "2016-11-04T19:02:27Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Are children assets or liabilities? Are we filling out the tax forms, or trying to get them ready for school? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-gay-marriage-is-a-right-what-about-this/770544/58 "2016-11-04T19:15:57Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Child custody would be a nightmare, and I’m sure I’ve just scratched the surface. > [@aldiboronti](#): > > Why would child custody be a nightmare? There would only be one biological father and one biological mother just as in non-polygamous marriage. I don’t see a problem here. Because the child(ren) would be part of a FAMILY that would be getting dissolved, and would still have an interest in maintaining a relationship with co-parent(s) and possibly with half-siblings. Family isn’t _all_ about DNA. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-gay-marriage-is-a-right-what-about-this/770544/59 "2016-11-04T20:26:33Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > The basis of allowing same-sex marriage is that if _two_ consenting adults( a man and a woman) can marry, then _two_ consenting adults ( two men or two women) should be allowed to marry. > > Since no three(or more) consenting adults (of any combination) are allowed to marry, then there is no basis for claiming discrimination. How can the mutual consent of three people be less sacred than that of two? > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If, as a hypothetical, men were allowed to have multiple wives then women would be able to argue that they should have the legal right to have multiple husbands. And gay people could claim the right to have multiple spouses. Sounds good. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-gay-marriage-is-a-right-what-about-this/770544/60 "2016-11-04T20:32:56Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > How can the mutual consent of three people be less sacred than that of two? > > Sounds good. Nobody is talking about what is or isn’t “sacred”. Have you read any of the responses concerning the possible _legal_ entanglements? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-gay-marriage-is-a-right-what-about-this/770544.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-gay-marriage-is-a-right-what-about-this/770544.md?page=4)